I'm surprised he resigned. He seemed to be the one working hardest to get the GOP to vote on a budget to prevent another gov't shutdown but they won't get off their defund Planned Parenthood nonsense so I guess he got pressure to resign.

Wonder who they'll get to replace him.

I think a lot of people are surprised he resigned. I know I am. He was seen as a turncoat by a lot of the fringers, unfortunately. It's a sad commentary on the political landscape that simply working across the aisle gets one labeled as a RINO/turncoat.

In any event, I'm sure his replacement will be a moderate

It wasn't the fringers that disliked him - it was a majority of everyone:

How is it that you can have no consistent set principles that direct and inform your views on various matters? The suggestions you’ve proffered below are, in consideration of their underlying principles, are all over the place, and I don’t mean ideologically. When I read the policy actions you cited below, I could not help but think they seem like the idea of someone who’s not yet defined and settled on a set of core principles from which then issue the policy approaches they propose.

There’s , of course, nothing wrong with not having fully formed, governing principles, and there are places, most notably college, for exploring the spectrum of them. Even this forum, is a reasonable place to do so, but in doing so, one needs to make clear that that’s what one is doing, as opposed to tossing out ideas as though they emanate from the well-considered population of potential philosophies from which one might have selected them.

Note to readers:

Within each topic, my comments are (hopefully all) italicized, whereas the OP's original comments are in straight text.

This would drastically reduce healthcare costs and retain the only positives of obamacare.

What is it about Obamacare that you find so objectionable?

How do you reconcile the socially benevolent approach you espouse (below) toward things like prices and university education with your socially Darwinist approach to healthcare?

What is your thinking – both morally and economically -- on the following statements?

All people, regardless of their wealth position, in the most productive nation on the planet should have equal access, within their country, to medical treatment and “routine” prophylaxis to the extent that such care falls not within the category of experimental medicine. To that end, the physiological wellbeing of its citizenry should be among the first priorities of any government that spends literally billions of dollars on programs that don’t have anywhere near as direct impact on promoting and ensuring their general welfare.

Foreign politics.

Resestablish good relations with Israel

What do you think is “bad” about our relationship with Israel? What would it take to make them “good?” What exactly is intrinsically vital to U.S. (or anyone else who doesn’t live in the land area defined by Israel’s current political boarders) citizens and that cannot be obtained by instead establishing good relations with all the rest of countries in the Middle East, all of which have resources and goods that are more vital to the U.S. way of life than is anything Israel has to export?

Force friendly Arab countries to attack Isis in conjunction with American boots on the ground.

Leave Syria to Russia with two conditions. No more Assad and no more Isis.

Tear up Iran treaty

Well, I’d tear it up too, but I suspect for very different reasons than you would.

Reimpose sanctions

Park military on Iran's border and tell them to dismantle completely their nuclear program.

Broadcast loudly to Iranian people that we will support a democratic overthrow.

Red:Were you a bully as a child, or is the “might is right” approach to foreign policy something you’ve only come to espouse upon reaching the age of majority, “infallibility” and ethical turpitude?

China

Renegotiate trade imbalance to where it is equal.

How? I can’t wait to see how you are going to convince Americans to buy fewer Chinese made goods and get Chinese to buy more American made ones.

What about China makes the proposal above not fall under the scope of "foreign politics?"

Mexico and immigration

Build a real wall with national guard patrolling

Isn't the point of a wall to eliminate the need to have people patrolling it, other than perhaps in preparation for a military invasion?

Tell illegals they need to register within 6 months. Ones that do can stay if they can show they have gainful employment, start paying taxes, and aren't felons. Ones that can't deport.

Revise immigration policy to allow skilled labor to immigrate easily.

We already have that policy in place. How would your version differ?

Pass a law requiring people born in the U.S. to only get citizenship if born to parents here legally.

Short of requiring even more government administration, and thus expanding the size of government, what would that accomplish? Why don’t we limit citizenship to people whose forebears came here prior to 1800 , or who have at least 200 years of family pedigree in the country? U.S. would not be what it is but for immigrants. Even the great, great, great, great, great, great,…grandfathers and grandmothers of people like me who can trace their ancestry to people who came to North America as English Colonists were immigrants.
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

Education costs. · Tell universities that if they raise tuition faster than inflation they loose the ability for their students to get federal assistance

Business

Repeal frank Dodd

Put in new legislation that isn't as restrictive to business but prevents another housing crisis.

Taxes.

Lower corporate taxes by half.

Create a 10% consumption tax on everything except basic essential stuff such as food and clothing, etc. and eliminate I federal income tax on the bottom 90% of earners.

Put additional income tax on top 10% of earners of 30%.

When some of the largest corporations pay little to nothing already, why would you bother lowering corporate taxes by half?

Okay, you need to clarify the second and third bullet points. The third one in particular I don’t understand. If there is a zero percent tax rate on the bottom 90% of earners, would the tax rate on the top 10% be 30%? If not, to what would it be “in addition” to?

How, given that currently the top 10% of earners have the top 90% of political influence, do you imagine you’d ever be able to achieve the ends you’ve identified in the two bullets above?

Are you suggesting too that the Constitution be amended to expressly grant to the President the “power of the purse” that is currently held in the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives?

Retirement

Allow a percentage of social security for people 10 years or longer from retirement to be invested in diversified mutual funds or similar like a 401k

How would you manage the disparity in financial management savvy among workers?

What are you going to do if/when those people end up losing more of the value of their market invested retirement accounts than can possibly and probably recovered within their remaining working years?

Such an approach has the upside of exploiting the fact that the more one risks, the more one stands to gain. Given potential market volatility, how would you accomplish the end of ensuring that people have at least a minimum sum saved such that they also don’t outlive their retirement savings/Social Secruity?

Given the risk profiles associated with market driven investment instruments and investors’ varying tolerance for risk/loss, what makes you think your idea will motivate workers to save more rather than save less (or the bare minimum), particularly insofar as the more one saves, the more risk to which one is exposed?

How would effect the cultural changes needed to shift American’s overall penchant to be risk averse to being risk takers overall?

Remove state and local firearms restrictions and create a unified set of ownership, purchase, and background checks nationally

Aside from moving the responsibility for gun control from the state sector to the federal sector, and expanding the ATF (or creating something akin to it) what would this accomplish? Non-felon, non-mentally ill people already can carry firearms freely in the overwhelming majority of U.S. jurisdictions. What’s considerably more restricted/prohibited is the right to freely carry concealed firearms.

Given the tax cutting you want to effect, how do you propose to pay for these things? Surely you don't think you can issue public debt to finance an expanded military?

Education

Remove tenure

Tenure is something universities grant at their discretion. What is so wrong with tenure? Are you proposing that the government interfere in the operations of private universities more than it already does? Are you instead suggesting that only private universities be permitted to grant tenure?

Allow voucher system for private education creating competition and allowing people to choose where they want to go

There already is competition and people already can choose. For example, all the schools in the Ten Schools Admissions Organization (TSAO) offer financial aid and make places available to kids from families having household incomes at or below $125K/year. I can’t speak for all the schools in TSAO, but the two with which I am familiar have about 25% of their student bodies receiving financial aid.

Having put three kids through private school for the entirety of their pre-collegiate lives, I can tell you this initiative is not going to accomplish what you’d like it to. The reason is because that a school is private doesn’t mean it’s necessarily going to be better or worse than a public school. The scope of information that can be taught to children up to and including high school age varies not by the public or private nature of the school, but rather by the character of the students and their families. Moreover, there’s no way that a government is going to fund vouchers that allow economically disadvantaged kids to attend the best private schools, nor is there any reason to think those kids will thrive in such places.

For example, the tuition at most of the nation’s top private schools running ~$35K - ~$50K, and total annual costs running ~$70K, give or take, there’s no way any voucher system is going to put more kids into those sorts of environments.

Better, I think would be for more public schools to adopt the Harkness method of instruction. That method, along with teaching students discrete facts and figures, also develops their independent and critical thinking skills.

Unions
Repeal kennedys law that allowed government workers to unionize What about "unions" makes them not be part of "business?"

What kind of state is it you are advocating for? I’m no fan at all of unions, but at the end of the day unionizing is part of our right to freedom of association. The principle that allows folks to form unions is the very same one, in part or in total, that allows us to have The Boy Scouts, country clubs, little leagues, PACs, churches, and pretty much every other group that exists in U.S., even those groups that many of us find objectionable.

Welfare

Reinstate clintons/Gingrich requirement that able bodied people capable of working must do so to get welfare

Child protection

Require websites with sexual or violent content to verify with valid ID to access content.

Protect established landmarks, traditions, etc from being destroyed. Ex 10 commandments on a courthouse

One either strictly or loosely construes the tenets of the Constitution, and that includes the principle calling for the separation of church and State. For example, say a town comes to be predominantly Jewish and Hindu, and the town builds a new local courthouse and engraves something akin to the 10 Commandments (or whatever, so long as it’s roughly analogous and exclusive to Hindu or Judaism) on the door or in the stones of the façade or architrave. Then, a century or so later, the town’s demographics change and it obtains many non-Jews or non-Hindus. Should the Jewish and Hindu “totems” and sayings be removed? Should they stay simply because they are “established?” Should they never, because of the concept of separating church and State, have been put there in the first place?

It’s one thing when there are very few people having spiritual belief systems that differ from that/those held by the overwhelming majority of a jurisdiction. In such cases, there won’t be much circumspection or outcry over the matter of whether something like a court house’s doors have the Ten Commandments inscribed thereupon. That doesn’t take away from the fact that the main things allowing such statements to have gotten on the door in the first place is the shortsightedness regarding the ebb and flow of the town’s (or state, or nation’s) demographic composition and the romantic notion that it will remain substantively as it was the day the court’s thus engraved doors first opened.

Do not require private businesses to provide services to people that goes against their religious beliefs

Private businesses already have the right to do exactly that provided they do so in a non-arbitrary fashion, that is, their denial is “given” consistently. If a business wants to deny service to Jews, for example, provided they implement a reasonably valid means of determining whether all potential customers are Jews, they are under no obligation to sell “whatever they sell” to Jews. Now if they somehow screw up and show a pattern of denying “service” to white Jews, but not to black Jews, the business has a problem because its stated policy is to deny service to Jews.

[I got tired by the time I got to your last few topic areas, so I just deleted them.]

One at a time. First. I'm not devoted to liberalism or conservatism. I'm my own man. I respect people who are their own man far more than sheep that follow a herd. I wish people would actually think things through before parroting what they heard from their gaggle of squawking friend, family, and news shows. I grew up in the NY/NJ area so I would consider myself leaning liberal on social issues and very conservative on the economy and military. Face it. Republicans know the economy and military. Democrats know social programs.

So Obama care.
I find havingmen have to pay for pregnancy tests and mammograms silly. I find costs soaring from it detestable. I find small business and employment being stymied by it deplorable. I find that not solving the root cause of high healthcare costs, lack of interstate competition and high insurance due to frivolous lawsuits being protected for monetary gain by Democrat politicians as just plain wrong.
By doing my plan insurance costs would drop meaningfully and rapidly.Obama care has had a net negative effect. No net new insured and those who are insured have higher costs, higher deductibles, and less choice. People who didn't have healthcare could get subsidized on a needs basis like welfare but into the private sector. The problem with Obama care is it is designed as a weapon to take control. There should be no compelling to have healthcare, no requirement that everyone get all services, no requirement that business are required to provide healthcare.

Obama has done everything possible to undermine Israel and Netanyahu during his tenure. I believe this is personal for him as Netanyahu is a staunch conservative and they don't like each other. But that is extremely selfish and petty for a president. We should be standing with and behind our greatest ally in the region and sole democracy.

The Iran Arab remarks
The Arab culture which is thousands of years old does not respect weakness. In order to gain respect and then possibly use deplomacy you need to project strength. Not go on a apology tour and alienate their enemy Israel. In other parts of the world different tactics should be used.

I singled out China specifically because they are soaking us. You could easily put tariffsome or restrictions on Chinese goods unless China opens it's doors to American goods. This would hurt China far more than America and they would play ball. China is another example of a culture that respects strength. Weakness is taken advantage of and our current administration is the weakest in decades towards foreign affairs. They naively feel if we are nice then everyone will be nice back. Doesn't work in NYC or in international relations with economic or physically hostile intentions.

Any wall no matter how good won't work without manpower to guard it. National guard needs to train. Have then train partly there. Net cost zero and effective

Tell illegals they need to register within 6 months. Ones that do can stay if they can show they have gainful employment, start paying taxes, and aren't felons. Ones that can't deport.
Revise immigration policy to allow skilled labor to immigrate easily.
We already have that policy in place. How would your version differ?

This isn't on place. Deporting is in place but not enforced. Have all law enforcement agencies ask everyone stopped and found to be an illegal deported.

The ammendment passed they use to create anchor babies was enacted to make the children of slaves citizens only as stated by the authors of the ammendment. This was an unforseen and unintended consequence. Trump has a point that this hasn't been challenged in court and by the letter of the law anchor babies may be found illegal. I am not a white first beat up on Hispanics. I am engaged to a Cuban born woman and more Spanish is spoken in my house than English. Immigrants are great. But not ones that use anchor babies as a means to skirt the system. We let more immigrants in yearly now than ever. No other country does this. They need to stand in line like everyone else.

Sanctuary cities are ones that tell their law enforcement forces that they cannot ask if someone is illegal, not deport or call INS if they find someone who is illegal. There are 300 of them now.

Of the types you listed free market is the optimal one with the government monitoring things such as monopolies, worker protection, and international trade.

US Corporate tax is the highest in the world. Lower it to 20% or something reasonable but close loopholes. All. Many corporationstudents now headquarter in Ireland but do 90% of their business in the US. Ireland has one of the lowest corporate tax rates. Of we do this corporationso and jobs will return to the US, profit more, and create jobs.
The top 10%, $500k+, would pay 30% income tax graduated from 0%to 30% at $1,000,000+ everyone would have a consumption tax, or tax on everything purchased, except basic necessities such as clothing under $100 in cost, food, etc. This stops the loopholes and black market, hookers, strippers, drug dealers, etc from not paying taxes.
This is not to give any power of the purse to the president. Each thing I name here are laws to be enacted by congress, not executive BS actions.

Retirement
Social security is the biggest crime being committed on the people of the US in the history of the country. It forces people to in effect invest in low returning government bonds. You need zero market say for what I would do and risk would be zero if you look at the entire history of the financial markets post great depression when they were regulated. Allow people to buy a new asset allocation fund that starts with high allocation to stocks, low to bonds, and over time migrates from stocks to bonds automatically. You don't get choices as to these funds. There is one to pick from and allocation is based on your age. Since a market cycle is 5-10 years and there are no 10 year periods where sticks have has a negative return let alone a diversified portfolio, early investors will be able to am mass far more retirement wealth with unmeasurably small risk. At ten years from retirement it reverts to standard social security as this is kills the risk of a down market.

Every dollar you put into social security you get 3 back at retirement. Every dollar you put into stocks early on in an Ira typically returns 64$ at return mentioned. This would also give the us companies large inflows of capital which would create growth, jobs, salaries, taxes, etc. Win all over.

I'm a 20 year financial industry trainer and executive. To the inexperienced or ignorant (not stupid mind you) this fear sounds credible but the reality is social security, CDs, etc are the safest way to guarantee you will be poor.

That said, it wouldn't surprise me if they weren't exactly budget conscious. That's the problem not just with the EPA but with government agencies in general (remember the GSA Vegas scandal? The former NSA chief customizing his office to look like the Star Trek enterprise cockpit?).

It's the nature of how they think. Every year each department is given a budget by Congress for the fiscal year and they can use that bucket of money as they see fit. Come every September government agencies tend to go on a spending binge. It's because they have every incentive to. The money is a "use it or lose it" affair. Don't spend it by the end of the fiscal year then you probably aren't going to see that money again since Congress will (rightfully so) assume that if you didn't need that money last year, you won't need it next year and departments want to get as much money allocated to them as possible.

The way the budgeting system works creates incentive for this type of reckless behavior.

I'm going to assume you're still writing because, well, (1) frankly there's a lot of ground to cover given your OP and my attempt to respond to it, the last topic I see you've noted is "retirement," and (3) with few exceptions, I don't see any direct answers to the questions I posed.

Firearms. 35+ states now have conceal carry laws. Each varies. Some states restrict ammunition, purchase restrictions, clip size, etc. Many do not allow carry. Some don't allow handguns at all. Typically the higher the restrictions the higher the gun crime. A gun free zone to a criminal means no one will opose you if you have a gun.
Perfectly law abiding citizens get arrested because thet travel somewhere that the rules are different and they don't know that states or even cities laws. Local politicians have for too long been able to restrict their citizens rights to gun ownership. For example handguns are illegal period in DC.
Make one set of laws that everyone is governed by that is reasonable.
As to mentally unstable people getting guns, the mental health care industry has to report people who should not have guns. They don't. They say that this will stop people from getting Healthcare. BS. People are not going to stop getting mental health treatment because they covet the is assault rifle. Add in also that if someone who isn't listed as having mental problems, but has or wants firarms, that if they have two or three unrelated sources say they are worried that this individual should have guns that that individual should be required to be examined psychologically tof continue to have firearms. The mental illness industry has a lot to answer for. Gun violence continues to drop as gun sales and carry states continue to climb. But the overwhelming majority of high death number incidents are caused by people who were mentally ill and most in treatment and unreported. Throw in all the gun suicides as well.

The tax cuts I propose will actually grow the economy so rapidly that the tax revenues will increase due to more people paying taxes through the consumption tax. Military spending should increase as well as shift from standard forces to these types of forces.